An expert on TV analyzes the political situation and concludes with the phrase, “You could view it as…” Instead of simply stating, “It is…” they say, “You could view it as…” Why do they speak this way? Fundamentally, this is a rhetorical strategy that defers judgment to the viewer, thereby suspending or evading the speaker's own responsibility. It is a form of linguistic self-defense designed to blur accountability by leaving an escape route open, effectively shifting the burden of final interpretation onto the person who “views it that way.”
It is also a style of “flexible authoritarianism”—maintaining control over the discourse while appearing to grant the other party a choice. It can be an expression of arrogance— “I set the standard, so you just need to accept what I say”—or it can appear as a tacit admission that “actually, even I am not certain.” Such a speaking style can undermine the credibility of the speaker's own words.
A similar issue lies in the phrase “I offer the words…” (e.g., “I offer the words of apology”). For instance, saying “I offer the words of apology” focuses on the *act* of saying sorry rather than the *feeling* of remorse itself. It resembles the outsourcing of emotion—like a third-party observer, the speaker brackets off their genuine feelings and merely adopts the form of an apology to fulfill a formal obligation. It may also be an unconscious manifestation of a desire to maintain a certain distance from the person receiving the apology, despite the words being spoken. This sense of distance makes the listener wonder, "Is that person truly apologizing?"
At this point, a question of faith arises: what is the difference between saying "You can view it as..." and "The Bible says..."? Christians often quote Jesus—for instance, saying, "Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself." Yet, beneath such words, might there not be a subtle disbelief or avoidance—a feeling that "I couldn't possibly go that far" or "That’s something only Jesus could do; for an ordinary person..."? After all, someone who has truly believed or gained insight would not rely on others or on texts; instead, they would clearly state in their own words that one "must love one's neighbor."
The phrase "The Bible says..." can carry an underlying intent: "I am merely conveying a fact; it is up to *you* to accept what the Bible teaches." Even if the speaker does not fully agree with the Bible's content or live according to its teachings, they have not lied. They have simply conveyed the information that "it is written in the Bible." It is a way of speaking that maintains a certain distance between the Bible's message and the speaker's own life.
The problem is that while statements like "The Bible says..." may convey information, they fail to move the listener’s heart and mind. In contrast, a definitive statement—simply saying "It *is*..."—might strike some as arrogant or haughty; yet, paradoxically, one might also sense the power of truth emanating from the speaker’s inner self. This is because someone who has truly grasped the truth does not stop at conveying information alone.
A fortune teller does not speak vaguely to a client, saying, "It could be this way, or it could be that way." They speak with a fair amount of confidence. Even if a fortune teller’s prediction might ultimately prove incorrect, the client finds a basis for judgment and comfort in the practitioner’s clear words. If convinced of the accuracy of the judgment, the client may come to place their trust in the fortune teller personally. New religious movements sometimes emerge from this very psychology.
Language rooted in the Bible or church texts offers a sense of stability, yet it often lacks significant power. The ability to move a listener to voluntary action stems from the speaker’s clear sense of agency and humble confidence. When someone speaks assertively—stating things directly—and the listener senses an aura of truth in those words, a change occurs within the heart, prompting physical action. If a person speaks with urgency and vigor, while the listener perceives both confidence and humility, is that not the very mode of conversation through which truth operates? After all, that was precisely how Jesus conversed.
No comments:
Post a Comment